Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Canada' started by Maggot12, Apr 19, 2020.
I'm reading handgun/s and shotgun/s. The folks he killed the next morning in Wentworth was said to be an "old hunting buddy" and wife.
So sounds like he's had prior access/exposure.
He could have asked every patient he had if they had a handgun for sale. Fuck knows....
Handgun may have come from the RCMP officer he murdered. He had prior involvement with police, not just what CBC has reported. The Tim Hortons by his denture clinic hand not cleared the lot before he had cleared his. Two off duty or plain clothed police parked in his cleared lot when they went into Tims. He put up the chain across his lot and refused to let them leave and was demanding money. Supervisors and marked units were called but clearly this is not the actions of a stable person. If he legally owned a handgun the police would have known as it must be registered as a restricted fire arm. His actions would have been enough for the police to seize that handgun potentially. He may not have been in legal possession or legally acquired but old sunny ways boy sure was quick to start talking about legislation that wouldn't have made a dust mote of a difference. We won't be able to explain this or find reason, the guy was crazy and the explanation for his behaviour is something for the academic to kick around and feel like they understand crazy people.
A beautiful gesture by Ontario.... Niagara falls illuminated in white and blue....Nova Scotia Strong.
Mods, I don't want my post to punt this thread to the basement so if this post will move this thread please delete my post or move it to CS&M.
CanadianX made some very good points in his post and I though a bit of regulatory backup might be helpful
What happened in Nova Scotia, Quebec, Toronto and in other shootings across Canada is horrible, incomprehensible, and heart breaking and are the result of Mental illness, illegal firearms possession, and a combination of other factors.
The Gun debates in Canada are in many ways an urban versus rural and political party sided debate. For those of us who grew up using firearms for hunting, sport shooting and general plinking at tin cans the evolution of shooting sports and the sophistication of modern firearms is to some degree overwhelming.
Living in a urban area people who own guns just don't talk about their participation in shooting sports, it is far too easy to become a pariah.
The process involved in getting a firearms license takes time, money and extensive background checks and the renewals can be complex.
The Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights seems to be doing a good job in countering the Governments position when and where the truth has been coloured or distorted by public officials or the media. Unfortunately, they do not get a bully pulpit to advance their case nor do they fund a National News Agency.
Doug Ford, Ontario's premier continues to surprise me, he first of all told the residents of Ontario he would tell them all he knew about Covid-19 so they would have the same information that he and his government did, and now he has taken on the Prime Minister and the Federal Government on their false flag attack on the recent proposed banning of over 1500 specific firearms.
There are so many rumours and media inspired experts chiming in without any real knowledge of the Firearm Regulations in Canada. Here are a few examples:
A person needs a license to own a firearm in Canada. It is a serious criminal offence to be in unauthorized possession of a firearm in Canada. Essentially, all firearms are already banned in Canada. The only way to legally own one is to meet and maintain the requirements of licensing. Sec 91 & 92 of the Criminal Code
It takes 3-6 months to obtain a firearms license.
A person who holds a firearm license in Canada is investigated by the RCMP every day. Every person who holds a firearms license will be electronically investigated in relation to CPIC (the Canadian Police Information Center). This is to determine if a licensee has had specific contact with police that would affect their eligibility to maintain a license. The system will automatically notify an authority of the concern which could result in a license being suspended, revoked or other actions.
The Firearms Act allows the home of a licensed firearm owner to be searched at the discretion of the government. The Chief Firearms Officer can request an “inspection” at their discretion and at a mutually agreed time. A gun owners refusal to grant an inspection is grounds for a warrant. At some level, holding a firearms license in Canada diminishes a person’s rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Note, there are some provisions limiting the areas to be searched
Assault weapons are legal to own in Canada. Although, it depends how you define “assault weapon”. Most people think that if a gun is black and has a flashlight on it or a detachable magazine, that it’s an assault weapon. But most informed people define one as a fully automatic rifle, meaning the firearm continues to shoot as long as you hold the trigger down, (so basically a machine gun). These have been prohibited in Canada since 1977 via Bill C-51.
Firearms are loosely regulated in Canada. Firearms are very tightly regulated and the criminal charges available to courts are life-destroying to those convicted. This applies to paperwork and administrative offenses as well. The court’s reluctance to use these regulations to punish criminals is easily demonstrated thus the problem isn’t a lack of regulation.
There are two separate online educational quizzes that interested inmates can take that explain the current firearms legislation and requirements in Canada. The highlighted points above are taken from the first quiz.
The problem is that people with guns keep shooting people and people without guns are sick of it.
I suspect there’s more people without guns who are sick of it than there are people with guns who really want an AR. In democracy, majority rules.
We can counter with technical details, but it’s an emotional argument and the majority isn’t on our side. I’m not emotionally attached to the AR and wasn’t planning on buying a .50, so I’m not bothered about this as much as some of my friends. I get their point of view, but I’m more angry at the people with guns who keep fucking this up for the rest of us than I am at the people who are tired of people with guns shooting other people.
I'm in a similar mindset.... and fortunately I won't be affected by the changes, although I have friends who will be. I feel for the IPSC 3 gun guys and the long range guys who are affected.... I am more disappointed on how it was pushed thru Parliament. This was a very well crafted and thought out document, that in my mind, was sitting and just waiting for an event to push it though on the acceptance by the uneducated, riding on opinion/passion and not fact. Time will tell.
A lot of wrong thinking there, if you believe in a persons right to own firearms then you should be against big gov taking any! The way everybody looses is when people have the stupid attitude that who cares I don't like those specific model so who cares they took them. Just because it does not directly affect you n99w does not mean it won't in the future because the way it works is you take little bits at a time by using people's indifference to anything that does not directly affect them.
Everybody needs to work together to keep everybody rights not just the ones that directly affect you. Otherwise when they come for the ones you do care about there will be no one left to oppose them because you weren't there to help them. Just saying.
Your argument relies on a lot of assumptions. I don’t believe in a persons right to own a firearm. Neither does Canadian law.
I assumed because of the way you phrased your post you were not a gun grabber my mistake.
The problem is criminals get hold of firearms illegally and use them illegally. You can't make murder more illegal than it is already. In mass murder the last three, including the tragedy in NS are: Firearm; Knife; and Van. If we lump all the homicides by fire arm in Canada its about 300/yr. Of those involving AR that number is zero. I don't know if an AR has ever been used in a homicide in Canada.
The concern is statements just as you've made where the focus is on gun ownership and not on criminal behaviour and mental health issues leading to criminals acts. Those who don't own guns should focus on the person not the tool or if you wish to focus on the tool strike up a lobby group to ban cars and knives. Attacking law-abiding gun owners is a soft target with no pay off. What people should be sick to death over is theatrical politics that use our tax money to campaign for our votes vs dealing with the real issue.
Last point, majority does not rule in a democracy. If that were the case then the Liberals with 31% of the popular vote would not be making any decisions. Also if we focus on the rights and freedoms of the group then the rights and freedoms of the individual die and we no longer live in a democracy we live in a socialist or communist state where your belonging to a group is how you are granted rights and freedoms and everyone else goes without until they conform. I don't want any part of that.
I don't think it was a well crafted document, but I get what you're saying. As a document it is wasted tax dollars and wasted paid effort of govt, this in of itself is extremely frustrating. As a policy it will not have any effect other than to reduce our freedoms, undermine and likely destroy the livelihood of thousands and destroy a multi-million dollar sport. It will serve to make this country a bit more divided and weaker as a nation and overarching, it will not stop a single mass killing. More to the point it utterly fails with uninformed who react to tragedy and the the near daily shootings in our cities that will continue unchecked and unabated. It is a failure in a long list of failures by idealists who haven't the acumen to run lofty ideas through vigour fact based analysis and develop a plan that provide viable solutions to the problems.
I wonder when the next shooting or stabbing or vehicular homicide occur what will the feelings be then, abject failure or hardened resolve to lock people down more with more legislation more regulation more oversight more surveillance.
Which I’d argue is proof that the restricting of ARs has been effective, and that perhaps the current law was adequate and they didn’t need to be prohibited.
I get what you’re saying, but it’s an emotional debate and not a logical one. Targeting black evil guns won’t be effective on crime but it will garner support because those in favour of the ban don’t care about technical specs.
I assume that the wish-washy liberals see this as a winning topic or they wouldn’t be interested in it. Its clearly not controversial enough that they’re afraid of loosing their minority over it.
First of all I want to thank everybody for being respectful and thoughtful, I expected nothing less.Thank you.
To expand on your point all Canadians gun owners included are equally sick of these killings. The tragedy in Nova Scotia was a crime committed by an unlicensed criminal using illicit firearms.
For me the issue is not about buying an AR or not , the issue seems to be at the very most weak enforcement of unlicensed individuals, gangsters, the mentally ill obtaining and using guns. The strategy being put forward does not address the gun problem Canada is facing nor are the penalties (sentences, fines) given severe enough for crimes committed by individuals with illegal guns.
The people with guns who are fucking it up are criminals and their crimes including illegal possession need to have mandatory prison sentences of some significance before any opportunity for parole.
If the Feds are going to forbid certain guns from being used that have been bought legally and new regulations just made them useless then the Feds need to buy them back at fair market value . The problem is the cost to the taxpayers for this would be in the billions.
If the Feds decreed Monday that all boats over 16 feet long or with engines over 15 hp were prohibited for recreational use on the oceans and all fresh water lakes, ponds and rivers in Canada every boat owner would want financial restitution from the government . This proposed ban is no different.
The same would apply if they banned all cars from public roads that had a combined fuel economy of greater than 8.0 litres per 100 KM and the non commercial use of pickup trucks on the nations roads. If the government is taking away a legal possession from a citizen then they need to pay fair market value for that item.
It was done as an Order in Counsel it didn't get to Parliament.
It was not well crafted and it will be challenged.
Owning a firearm is an earned right met by passing exams, satisfying a comprehensive background check, reapplying every 5 years and meeting the standards of the day. The problem is not and never has been with legal gun owners and the Feds know this.
This requires a pretty liberal interpretation of what I said.
Agreed, but these changes have nothing to do with the crime committed in NS. They campaigned on this months ago, NS happened, and they probably figured that now was the time to take action on it.
Agreed, although I lack the knowledge to argue about the enforcement side of things.
Some of the stuff you quoted me as saying wasn’t stuff I said.
It’s a privilege that is earned, not a right that is given.
I don't think it is proof at all. Consider the US ARs factor in a tiny, single percentage points, of all firearms homicides yet are the most popular long gun with millions and millions in circulation. They simply are not the firearm of choice for criminals. They have shown up in some mass shootings but being the most popular firearm with huge numbers in circulation the AR in of itself isn't a factor. It would be like the running joke we had when patrolling in Afghanistan and a BOLO would come out for a white Toyota Corolla because almost every car was a corolla and most were white. Let me put a finer point on it - In Canada if restrictions worked then why are the overwhelming number of shootings occurring with handguns, also a highly regulated firearm? The truly tiresome piece in all of this is trying to make roughly 300 homicides per year by firearm sound like a big issue, it isn't statistically speaking. I get that it is a terrible and personal thing to those who have lost loved ones but given most of these murders are gang related violence perpetrated with firearms that are being illegally brought into the country and illegally carried and used? Blaming firearms is like blaming cars because of drunk drivers or psychos in rental vans.
Fear and irrational based decision making is a failure and in my opinion so is this government's actions on this issue. Spending millions on this legislation while leaving the real issue unchecked. It's criminal in my mind.
People that would support the erosion of freedoms without a legitimate trade off are very child like in their understanding of the implications.
Soon as I read the words "right to own and big gov". I had to look to see where you're from.
Owning weapons isn't a right. it's a privilege like having a vehicle licence. I kinda see it like this..
To get groceries, one can take a dump truck, a Corolla, a scooter, or a Ferrari. You can't take a tank, or an F1 race car to do it.
So, no-one's stopping you from getting groceries, just the means of how you're gonna carry this out.
I remember playing lawn darts as a kid... Legend has it, some kid got speared in the head with one, and died. I never saw lawn darts again. I was disappointed, but for the good of mankind, everyone got rid of their lawn darts. Bean bag toss is allowed now though.
I only remember because people asked me WTF a Saracha looked like.
Look... maybe I didn’t articulate myself well but I feel like I’m being pushed to defend a stance I’m not trying to adopt. I don’t mind playing devils advocate but I’m not really interested in countering your argument because I agree with it.
Those on the side of gun control probably see this as a legitimate trade off.
Apologies if I've shaped my responses to make you feel you need to defend a stance, I'm just responding to the thoughts and having a back and forth. Good on you to understand the other point of view and to offer it here. I appreciate the position of the devil's advocate as its a role I often play myself. The friction of debate is where ideas can be refined and common ground found. In Canada the ability to have that discourse has been seriously undermined.
Not your fault. I was trying but I think I fucked it up and couldn’t stay in the middle. I get their point of view, having grown up both rural and urban my own opinions on the subject contradict each other, and I don’t think the influx of American pop-culture/propaganda is helping.
Curious who you were with.
2 PPCLI, TF 1-08.